OGTC - ABB NII Initiative/Phase 2 Summary Report · strategy, the Oil and Gas Technology Centre...

Use of this document is subject to the confidentiality provisions and intellectual property rights in the terms and conditions applicable to the contract under which it was produced.

Report: 300110702-0

Version: B

Date: 14 May 2018

OGTC - ABB NII Initiative

Phase 2 Summary Report

Phase 2 Summary Report

Report Ref. 300110702-0 Version B Page 2 of 23 © Copyright ABB Limited 2018 Use of this document is subject to the confidentiality provisions and intellectual property rights in the terms and conditions applicable to the contract under which it was produced.

Report: Ref. No: 300110702-0 Version: B Date: 14 May 2018 Prepared for: Oil & Gas Technology Centre 20 Queens Road Aberdeen AB15 4ZT Prepared by: A Hollins Telephone: 01642 372205 Email: [email protected] ABB Limited

Belasis Hall Business Park Pavilion 9 Byland Way Billingham TS23 4EB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1642 372000 Fax: +44 (0)1642 372111 Email: [email protected]


Contents

1 Executive Summary 4

2 Background 6

3 Summary of Changes to the Inspection Requirements 8

4 Assessment Methodology 12

5 Phase 2 Pilot Study Findings 14

5.1 Study scope 14

5.2 Type of inspection 14

5.3 Discussion of findings 16

6 Estimation of resulting savings in inspection costs 18

7 Conclusion 22

Appendix A Table 5 – Estimated Annual Inspection Costs Before and After NII Pilot Study 23


1 Executive Summary

OGTC and ABB are progressing an opportunity for Operators in the UKCS to benefit from

recent advances in non-intrusive inspection (NII) technology. The benefits to UKCS are

projected to be of the order of £240 million per annum in reduced maintenance costs

associated with preparing vessels for inspection and increased production due to higher

equipment availability. The initiative has been progressed in two phases.

Phase 1 of the study was a survey in which interviews were conducted with Technical

Authorities from nine major UKCS Operators about their current inspection methodology

to establish the current status and potential for application of the NII methodology and

technology. The findings of these interviews are summarised in the Non-Intrusive

Inspection Survey Report produced by ABB for OGTC and issued to the UKCS in 2017.

Phase 2 involved four pilot studies with selected Operators to further demonstrate the

potential to deploy NII technology. This report summarises the outcome of the pilot NII

reviews of 79 representative vessels subject to internal inspections on the assets of four

Operators. The pilot studies considered a range of vessel types and materials located on

both fixed installations and FPSOs.

The headline outcomes of the Phase 2 pilot studies which took place between October

2017 and February 2018 are as follows:

• The requirement for intrusive inspections across the four Operators could be

reduced by 47%.

• Some 44% of the vessels were found to require vessel entries for process

cleaning, the inspection of internal fittings or linings, or for periodic repairs / item

replacement.

• If we set aside the 44% of vessels requiring entry for other reasons and a vessel

due replacement, 84% of the remaining vessels are potential candidates for NII.

• The cost of inspection for the 37 vessels identified as suitable for NII could be

reduced by an estimated £ 1.5 million per annum.


• Exposure of individuals to the risks of entry to confined spaces could be

significantly reduced as a result of the 47% reduction in the number of internal

inspections requiring man entry.

• The corresponding reduction in the number of flanged joints to be broken and then

re-made would reduce the likelihood of loss of containment and would contribute

to improved safety and environmental performance.

• The reduction in vessel cleaning and purging requirements would further improve

safety and environmental performance.

These outcomes assume that findings of the pilot studies are implemented.


2 Background

In line with the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) Maximising Economic Recovery (MER)

strategy, the Oil and Gas Technology Centre (OGTC) and ABB are progressing an

opportunity for Operators in the UKCS to benefit from recent advances in Non-Intrusive

Inspection (NII) technology. This initiative has been progressed in a number of phases.

NII enables pressure vessels to be inspected with the equipment on-line and avoids the

requirement for entry into confined spaces to perform the examination. The capability of

NII technology is increasing year on year.

In Phase 1 a survey of nine Operators established the current use of NII technology

across the UKCS and the potential for its wider application. The survey identified that NII

offers the following benefits to the UKCS:

• Safety – up to 80% fewer confined space entries with a corresponding reduction

in the number of line breaks and subsequent leak tests

• Financial - increased production and lower maintenance costs worth circa £242

million pa to the UKCS

o increased equipment availability reducing lost and deferred production

o shorter Turnarounds – reductions in duration of 33% have been

achieved

o overall cost savings of up to 80% compared to inspections that involve

entry into a vessel

The current use of NII within the UKCS is limited with some Operators currently making

little or no use of NII. The potential is that up to 80% of vessels could be examined non-

intrusively.


The survey identified that the main barriers to realising the potential of NII are:

• Conservatism in parts of the industry, due to a perception of the lack viable NDE

techniques

• Concerns about regulatory compliance

• A lack of management engagement

• A lack of transparency of the overall cost of inspection.

• Availability of data within the UKCS

A second phase has now been completed. Phase 2 was intended to help the industry

overcome the barriers outlined above and gain the benefits from deploying NII

technology across the UKCS.

Phase 2 comprised pilot studies with four Operators that were making no use of NII as a

substitute for major intrusive inspection. Some 20 vessels were assessed for each

Operator to identify those which could be inspected effectively using NII. All of these

vessels were subject to schemes of examination based upon internal inspection. The

purpose of Phase 2 was to demonstrate the scope for the application of NII with these

Operators.


3 Summary of Changes to the Inspection Requirements

The changes to the inspection requirements determined as a result of the Phase 2 pilot

studies are summarised in Table 1 below, and are illustrated in more detail in Figures 1

and 2. The resulting reduction in inspection costs is shown in Table 2 on page 11. The

inspection costs used in this estimation are based upon the findings of the NII survey in

Phase 1.

Operator A

Operator B

Operator C

Operator D Overall

Vessels in Study 20 20 19 20 79

Before NII Study

Internal – Man Entry 20 17 19 16 72

Internal – No Man Entry 0 3 0 4 7

After NII Study

Internal – Man Entry 6 9 11 12 38

Internal – No Man Entry 0 0 0 4 4

NII 14 11 8 4 37

% NII 70% 55% 42% 20% 47%

Table 1: Summary of Changes to Inspection Requirements


Figure 1: Inspection splits before and after NII Review

38

4

37

All Operators after NII Review

Internal - Man Entry Internal - No Man Entry NII


Figure 2: Inspection Splits before and after NII Review for each Operator


Operator A

Operator B

Operator C

Operator D Overall

Vessels in Study 20 20 19 20 79

Before NII Study

Annualised Inspection Cost (£k)

550 1,259 1,455 673 3,937

After NII Study

Annualised Inspection Cost (£k)

239 608 1,032 603 2,482

Cost Saving (£k) 311 651 423 70 1,455

Cost Saving (%) 57% 42% 29% 10% 37%

Table 2: Summary of Changes to Annual Inspection Costs

The cost estimations are recorded in Table 5 in Appendix A.


4 Assessment Methodology

The NII assessments were undertaken using a screening methodology based on the

DNV Recommended Practice on Non-Intrusive Inspection (DNV-RP-G103). The same

methodology was followed for each of the pilot studies. Figure 3 outlines the

methodology, which has five stages:

1. Review the item’s deterioration mechanism and likelihoods based on:

• Inspection history, including the type and effectiveness of inspection

methods;

• Operational information such as operating temperatures, fluid

composition; and

• Design and construction specification, including Materials of Construction

and internal and external coatings.

2. Carry out NII screening procedure following the DNV RP guidance to reach a

high level decision about the suitability of NII based on:

• The review of deterioration mechanisms and likelihoods;

• Inspection history, including the type and effectiveness of inspection

methods; and

• Learning from other equipment on that asset, or similar equipment on

other assets.

3. (If NII is possible). Produce a detailed technical assessment and justification.

Review with the in-house team including the materials Technical Authority (TA)

and inspection. (If NII is not possible go to Step 5.)

4. Update the CMMS and set the new strategy with the new inspection scope and

interval.

5. Execute inspections. Periodically Step 1 of the process will be revisited.

The results of steps 1 to 3 of the methodology were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet

provided to each of the Operators.


Figure 3: NII review methodology

Step 2DNV NII screening

procedure and high-level

inspection decision

Step 3Review with in-

house team including materials TA and inspection

Step 4Update CMMS and

set new strategy with new

inspection scope and interval

Step 5Execute

inspections

Step 1Review

deterioration mechanisms and

likelihoods

Inspection history, type and

effectiveness

Operational information

Design and construction specification

Learning from other equipment on that asset or

similar equipment on other assets

Operational temperatures

History

Materials of ConstructionInternal & External Coatings


5 Phase 2 Pilot Study Findings

5.1 Study scope

Four Operators participated in the pilot studies. The studies covered 79 vessels located

on three fixed installations and four FPSOs. These installations are located on the

UKCS, or, as is the case for one of the FPSOs, shortly to be relocated to the UKCS. All

of the vessels were subject to intrusive inspection. In the majority of cases this

inspection required man-entry into the vessel.

The pilot studies considered a range of representative vessel types including scrubbers,

separators, drums and heat exchangers. Materials were mainly carbon steel (75%) with

some duplex (20%) and stainless steel (5%). 55% of the vessels had a lining.

5.2 Type of inspection

The absence of internal degradation mechanisms in many of the vessels enabled the

requirement for intrusive inspection to be reduced or eliminated. This was the situation

for Operators A, B & C. For Operator D it was determined that there was little scope for a

reduction in intrusive inspection.

Prior to the study all operators had 100% intrusive inspection. Following the study the

requirement for intrusive inspection was reduced to:

• 30% of the vessels for Operator A

• 45% of the vessels for Operator B

• 58% of the vessels for Operator C

• Only 80% of the vessels for Operator D

The pilot study found that the majority of Operator D’s vessels require an entry for

operational and maintenance reasons and hence no advantage would be gained in

moving to an NII strategy. A significant number of the 20 vessels in the sample require

periodic entry for cleaning and/or for inspection and repair of the internal fittings. Eight of


these vessels have internal heating elements that require inspection. One vessel has not

been internally inspected since installation and no inspection history was available for

another vessel.

The variation in the results between the Operators is also due to the number of vessels

with internal linings and the need, based upon operating experience and the materials of

construction, to enter the vessel on a periodic basis to inspect and where necessary

repair or replace the lining. The materials of construction specified for the vessel shell

and the lining are important factors, especially where linings with a limited life have been

applied. For example, there is more opportunity to move to NII where the shell is made

from carbon steel or duplex with an internal metallic overlay than vessels coated with

some of the non-metallic linings.

A significant outcome of these pilot studies is that for the vessels that are deemed to be

suitable for NII the inspection can potentially be undertaken with the equipment online.

The range of inspection intervals for each Operators are listed below:

• Operator A - 60 to 144 months.

• Operator B - 18 to 72 months.

• Operator C - 12 and 72 months.

• Operator D - 12 and 144 months (with more than half of the vessels on a 144

month interval).

The reasons for the significant variation in periodicity from Operator to Operator are not

clear and investigation of this was not within the scope of the pilot studies. Operator A

has the fixed installations and Operators B, C & D have FPSOs, but this may not be a

relevant factor.

The fact that Operator A’s vessels are inspected much less frequently is the reason why

the estimated cost savings for this Operator are substantially lower than those for

Operators B and C when the figures are calculated on an annual basis. This is despite

the fact that Operator A has the largest percentage of vessels that are suitable for NII

(70% in comparison with 55%, and 42% for Operators B & C respectively). Operator D

has the lowest annualised cost saving by a wide margin. Only a few of Operator D’s


vessels are suitable for NII, because entry is undertaken for the reasons discussed on

the previous page, and the inspection intervals are longer.

See Section 5 and Table 5 in Appendix A.

5.3 Discussion of findings

One of the criteria in DNV-RP-G103 for moving to an NII strategy is that vessel entry is

not programmed for other reasons. As can be seen in Table 3, below, vessel entries are

required for reasons other than inspection for 17 of the vessels, some 22% of the

vessels assessed during the pilot studies.

The need to remove sand is one of the main requirements for a vessel entry. On-line

sand removal technology can be installed but it is not clear to what extent this capability

has been installed on the vessels in these assets. Other vessels were found to be in

need of internal repairs, for instance to areas of pitting or to internal fittings (i.e. grids).

Two vessels were found to require periodic replacement of sacrificial anodes. Some

vessels require both the removal of sand and internal repairs. Overall 25 vessels, were

deemed to be not suitable for NII. This is 32% of the vessels covered by the four pilot

studies.

Deemed suitable for NII 37

Determined to be not suitable for NII 25

Vessel entry required for reasons other than inspection 17

Total 79

Table 3: Outcome of NII assessment

Table 4, on the next page, records the reasons why NII cannot be applied to the vessels.

It is notable that reservations about the capability of NII to detect the anticipated defects


applies to only 3 of the vessels, 4% of the vessels covered in the pilot studies. Another 3

vessels will be processing hydrocarbons from new fields and uncertainty about the fluid

composition means that the presence and rate of progression of internal deterioration

cannot be predicted with sufficient confidence. A lack of inspection history meant than

another vessel had to be excluded. All together this means that only 9% of the vessels

cannot be inspected using NII for technical reasons.

Low confidence in ability of NII to detect the predicted defects 3

Uncertainty about the fluid composition from new field(s) 3

Inspection of vessel lining 7

Inspection of heat exchanger tubes 9

Inspection of heating element 1

Limited remaining life of vessel 1

No inspection history – vessel not inspected since installation in 2012 1

Total 25

Table 4: Vessels not suitable for NII

17 vessels require internal inspections to internal fittings (i.e. the lining, heat exchanger

tubes or heating element). It was established that for these vessels the inspection had to

be done internally. For the remaining vessel it was decided that NII was not worth

undertaking for reasons of limited vessel life.

If we exclude the vessels requiring entry for the reasons outlined above, i.e.

• 17 vessels for which entry is required for reasons other than inspection

• 17 vessels with internal fittings requiring an internal inspection to be undertaken


plus the vessel with limited operational life, the vessels deemed suitable for NII represent

37 out of the remaining 44 vessels. This is 84% of the vessels that are potential

candidates for NII.

6 Estimation of resulting savings in inspection costs

The savings that would result from substituting NII for internal Inspections have been

estimated for each Operator based on an average cost for each type of inspection.

These figures have been annualised by dividing the costs by the inspection interval.

The estimated cost for an internal inspection includes the costs of the vessel’s

mechanical preparation for internal inspection, scaffolding, undertaking the inspection

and reinstating the vessel. Based upon the findings of the NII survey (Phase 1), a figure

of £236k has been used for the average cost of undertaking an internal inspection.

A figure of £44k is used for the average cost of undertaking the NII inspections. This

estimate is also based upon the findings of the NII survey. Any availability cost impact on

the operation of the asset resulting from a vessel needing to be offline for non-intrusive

inspection to be undertaken has likewise been excluded.

ABB accepts that this approach has only produced a very approximate estimate for the

cost reduction, as highly detailed cost information would be required and a much more in

depth analysis needed in order to produce a more accurate estimate. The actual savings

will vary according to the operational circumstances relating to each Operator, whereas

the estimated savings assume that the average figures apply to each Operator.

The estimation of the annualised costs for each of the four Operators before and after

the reviews are provided in Table 5 in Appendix A. The change in costs for each of the

operators is shown in Table 2 and is illustrated in Figure 4, on the next page. This

demonstrates the magnitude of the potential savings resulting from the application of NII.

As noted in Section 4 the annual inspection costs for Operator A are lower than

Operators B and C because the interval between the inspections is longer for Operator

A, thereby reducing the cost on an annualised basis.


The total cost saving across the four operators is estimated to be almost £1.5 million per

annum, representing a 37% overall saving in inspection costs. This is illustrated in Figure

5 on the next page. The cost of intrusive inspections remains the major contributor to the

overall cost of inspection.

Figure 4: Change in Inspection Costs for Operators A-D


Figure 5: Overall Change in Annual Inspection Costs

The estimated costs for intrusive inspections and NIIs for each Operator are shown in

Figure 6, on the next page. This clearly illustrates the differences in the potential cost

savings for each Operator.

The cost savings estimated in Table 5 are, however, likely to be an underestimation of

the savings in the total cost of inspecting the vessels. ABB does not have the data

needed to estimate the production costs associated with undertaking the inspections on

the vessels covered by these pilot studies.


Figure 6: Inspection Costs for Operators A-D


7 Conclusion

These NII pilot studies have identified a significant reduction in the number of intrusive

inspections for the 79 vessels considered, at an acceptable level of risk, together with a

corresponding direct saving in inspection costs of approximately £1.5 million per year,

equivalent to a saving of approximately 37%.

The potential for the application of NII varies significantly from one Operator to another.

Nevertheless, the estimated cost savings are worthwhile in each case.

The £1.5 million inspection cost saving equates to an annual saving of circa £20k per

vessel. In Phase 1 the potential savings in inspection costs for the vessels across the

UKCS was estimated to be £141 million per year. This is equivalent to circa £30K per

vessel per year based upon an average inspection frequency of 60 months.

In Phase 1 the potential value of the increased production to the UKCS that would result

from implementation of NII was estimated to be of the order of £100 million per year.

44% of the vessels assessed in the pilot studies were found to require vessel entries for

cleaning, periodic repairs and replacements, and for the inspection of internal fittings or

the vessel lining. If these vessels are excluded NII can be used to inspect 84% of the

remaining vessels.

7 out the 79 vessels were found to be unsuitable for NII due to uncertainty in the ability

of NII to detect the predicted defects (3), uncertainty about the fluid composition (3) and

no inspection history (1).

By adopting NII it has been demonstrated that 37 vessels would not require man entry

for the vessel to be inspected. This represents a significant safety improvement as the

individual exposure of persons to the risks associated with a confined space entry is

correspondingly reduced.

The associated reduction in the number of joints to be broken and then re-made directly

reduces the likelihood of loss of containment contributing to improved safety and

environmental performance. The reduction in cleaning and purging requirements will

also contribute to improved safety and environmental performance.


Appendix A Table 5 – Estimated Annual Inspection Costs Before and After NII Pilot Study

Operator A Operator BVessels in study 20 20

Before StudyInspection interval

(months)Number of vessels

Annualised number of inspections

Cost per inspection (£k)

Annualised inspection cost (£k)






Internal - Man Entry 144 4 0.33 236 78.67 Internal - Man Entry 60 10 2.00 236 472.00Internal - Man Entry 120 6 0.60 236 141.60 Internal - Man Entry 48 1 0.25 236 59.00Internal - Man Entry 108 2 0.22 236 52.44 Internal - Man Entry 36 4 1.33 236 314.67Internal - Man Entry 84 1 0.14 236 33.71 Internal - Man Entry 24 1 0.50 236 118.00Internal - Man Entry 72 5 0.83 236 196.67 Internal - Man Entry 18 1 0.67 236 157.33Internal - Man Entry 60 1 0.20 236 47.20 Internal - No Man Entry 72 2 0.33 236 78.67Internal - Man Entry To be reassessed 1 - 236 0.00 Internal - No Man Entry 48 1 0.25 236 59.00

Totals 20 550.29 Totals 20 1,258.67

After Study After StudyInternal - Man Entry 120 1 0.10 236 23.60 Internal - Man Entry 72 1 0.17 236 39.33Internal - Man Entry 108 1 0.11 236 26.22 Internal - Man Entry 60 5 1.00 236 236.00Internal - Man Entry 72 3 0.50 236 118.00 Internal - Man Entry 36 3 1.00 236 236.00Internal - Man Entry To be reassessed 1 - 236 0.00 NII 60 11 2.20 44 96.80NII 144 4 0.33 44 14.67NII 120 5 0.50 44 22.00NII 108 1 0.11 44 4.89NII 84 1 0.14 44 6.29NII 72 2 0.33 44 14.67NII 60 1 0.20 44 8.80

Totals 20 239.13 Totals 20 608.13

Annual Cost Saving (£k) Operator A 311 Annual Cost Saving (£k) Operator B 651Annual Cost Saving (%) Operator A 57% Annual Cost Saving (%) Operator B 52%

Operator C Operator D OverallVessels in study 19 20 79











Internal - Man Entry 72 1 0.17 236 39.33 Internal - Man Entry 144 12 1.00 236 236.00Internal - Man Entry 60 1 0.20 236 47.20 Internal - Man Entry 108 2 0.22 236 52.44Internal - Man Entry 48 8 2.00 236 472.00 Internal - Man Entry 96 1 0.13 236 29.50Internal - Man Entry 36 6 2.00 236 472.00 Internal - Man Entry 60 1 0.20 236 47.20Internal - Man Entry 30 2 0.80 236 188.80 Internal - No Man Entry 144 2 0.17 236 39.33Internal - Man Entry 12 1 1.00 236 236.00 Internal - No Man Entry 96 1 0.13 236 29.50

Internal - No Man Entry 12 1 1.00 236 236.00 Before StudyTotals 19 1,455.33 Totals 20 669.98 Overall Total Annual Cost (£k) 3,934.27

After Study After StudyInternal - Man Entry 72 1 0.17 236 39.33 Internal - Man Entry 144 9 0.75 236 177.00Internal - Man Entry 60 1 0.20 236 47.20 Internal - Man Entry 108 1 0.11 236 26.22Internal - Man Entry 48 2 0.50 236 118.00 Internal - Man Entry 96 1 0.13 236 29.50Internal - Man Entry 36 4 1.33 236 314.67 Internal - Man Entry 60 1 0.20 236 47.20Internal - Man Entry 30 2 0.80 236 188.80 Internal - No Man Entry 144 2 0.17 236 39.33Internal - Man Entry 12 1 1.00 236 236.00 Internal - No Man Entry 96 1 0.13 236 29.50NII 48 6 1.50 44 66.00 Internal - No Man Entry 12 1 1.00 236 236.00NII 48 2 0.50 44 22.00 NII 144 4 0.33 44 14.67

After StudyTotals 19 1,032.00 Totals 20 599.42 Overall Total Annual Cost (£k) 2,478.69

Annual Cost Saving (£k) Operator C 423 Annual Cost Saving (£k) Operator D 71 Overall Annual Cost Saving (£k) 1,455.58Annual Cost Saving (%) Operator C 29% Annual Cost Saving (%) Operator D 11% Overall Annual Cost Saving (%) 37%

Date post:	08-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

OGTC - ABB NII Initiative/Phase 2 Summary Report · strategy, the Oil and Gas Technology Centre...

Documents